You can't ignore domestic concerns because of foreign policy questions. If the American president (or the candidate for such a job) can't or doesn't address American domestic concerns, who will? I am a strong believer in an active foreign policy but at no point should it replace or subvert domestic policy. Americans fighting is very much a domestic concern; that it also concerns those they fight is insufficient reason for us to be silent. Let us not forget who the US government should be serving.
Also, Orson Scott Card wrote some great books but I believe him to be otherwise a total for his loudly proclaimed intolerance on several issues, including non-Christian religions and homosexuality.
Reading this article made me feel like I was reading one of his books where he is predicting basically the end of a society based on one character's action or inaction... Orson Scott Card is extrapolating this judgment on the democratic candidate's character based on a more-or-less offhand comment of Obama's. Whether or not it is accurate, well, I have no way of knowing.
Honestly, I think that opinion is garbage. It's a false premise that equals a ridiculous conclusion (as Andrew would put it). The idea that it is bad to criticize current policy is, in my opinion, against just about everything America is supposed to stand for. By using fear as a tactic in silencing the opinions of others, I feel, we weaken our credibility and erode the first amendment
( ... )
I don't think his point is that it's bad to criticize foreign policy, nor that his goal is to use fear to silence others - though it is something of a scary idea. I think his point is that it's important to think through the affect it will have on the people who are involved before doing so. (i.e. the soliders who are abroad
( ... )
Well, he probably isn't a bad person, maybe a little nuts, but probably not a bad person. Actually, it looks like he's Mormon so his outlook on gays and birth control is not at all surprising.
As for news, a good place to get news a little better than here is the BBC News (way better on world news). I also enjoy www.Huffingtonpost.com It is decidedly and unapologetically liberal, but it covers a lot of stories that CNN and the likes don't mention. I get a lot of opinion on news affecting women from www.feministing.com (also liberal). I also still read CNN and Chicago Tribune. Andrew reads a handful of additional blogs as well. Newsweek is good, but leans a little left, Time is more center, also good. The Economist and US News and World are both pretty centered and well written as far as magazines go.
I won't lie, we get a lot of our news from liberal sources in my house, but then, they tend to talk about the issues that concern us.
Thanks for the advice! I will check some of those out. I still don't know where I stand on the "liberal" vs "conservative" front, so reading from a variety of sources is helpful.
I think if your scenario was the case, the American people would think the person calling for the end of the war was a loon. I don't think it's a movement that would gain any steam. There were people opposed to WWII, but it didn't gain the same steam. There is no way, if we were being bombarded by air raids, that an anti-war candidate would stand in a spot of being a favorite for president. The American people do not need Obama or McCain to tell them what their view on the war should be. We are smart enough to look at our world and come up with our own feelings.
I do feel bad for soldiers, though - that they're fighting a war most Americans don't want them to be fighting. We should respect our military. But I have to remind myself that what most don't respect is not the SOLDIERS, it's the war effort as a whole and how the administration is handling it. IF we even know what we're talking about. :)
I wonder how textbooks are going to look on this situation in 50 years...
"they're fighting a war most Americans don't want them to be fighting. We should respect our military."
I'm glad you caught yourself right after this, because it seemed for an instant you were about to plunge over the cliff of making the means into the end. It is a Very Bad Thing (tm) when fighting a war becomes an end unto itself, when the belligerency and the casus belli become the same. The tail should not wag the dog, which-came-first-chicken-or-egg, other aphorisms as appropriate.
I'm all for supporting the soldiers, and for supporting the military, I think they should have a huge budget, blaa blaa blaa, but never for an instant let yourself or anyone else think that 'because there is a war on' is a good enough reason to be at war.
Comments 13
Also, Orson Scott Card wrote some great books but I believe him to be otherwise a total for his loudly proclaimed intolerance on several issues, including non-Christian religions and homosexuality.
Reply
Reply
This makes me realize I forgot to quote the original article's source: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-05-18-1.html
Reply
Reply
Reply
As for news, a good place to get news a little better than here is the BBC News (way better on world news). I also enjoy www.Huffingtonpost.com It is decidedly and unapologetically liberal, but it covers a lot of stories that CNN and the likes don't mention. I get a lot of opinion on news affecting women from www.feministing.com (also liberal). I also still read CNN and Chicago Tribune. Andrew reads a handful of additional blogs as well. Newsweek is good, but leans a little left, Time is more center, also good. The Economist and US News and World are both pretty centered and well written as far as magazines go.
I won't lie, we get a lot of our news from liberal sources in my house, but then, they tend to talk about the issues that concern us.
Reply
Reply
Reply
The American people do not need Obama or McCain to tell them what their view on the war should be. We are smart enough to look at our world and come up with our own feelings.
Reply
I do feel bad for soldiers, though - that they're fighting a war most Americans don't want them to be fighting. We should respect our military. But I have to remind myself that what most don't respect is not the SOLDIERS, it's the war effort as a whole and how the administration is handling it. IF we even know what we're talking about. :)
I wonder how textbooks are going to look on this situation in 50 years...
Reply
I'm glad you caught yourself right after this, because it seemed for an instant you were about to plunge over the cliff of making the means into the end. It is a Very Bad Thing (tm) when fighting a war becomes an end unto itself, when the belligerency and the casus belli become the same. The tail should not wag the dog, which-came-first-chicken-or-egg, other aphorisms as appropriate.
I'm all for supporting the soldiers, and for supporting the military, I think they should have a huge budget, blaa blaa blaa, but never for an instant let yourself or anyone else think that 'because there is a war on' is a good enough reason to be at war.
Reply
Leave a comment